Posted on 08/01/2007 2:00:38 PM PDT by blam
The first mention of my family in the Cotswalds area of Gloustershire was in 1278, I have the genealogy and if anyone is doing a study I might be interested.
Yes, the Spanish definitely did die of plague. Some of it was spread along the Camino de Santiago, unfortunately, by flea-infested pilgrims. The French were blamed for it.
Foreigners were often blamed for the plague, partly because plague was often found in urban (particularly seaport) areas where foreigners were common. But of course, rats were also common in these areas...
Actually, if one pays close attention, this action can be observed portrayed at least in a couple other scenes. I believe that it is not a superfluous part of the scene. If so, then why repeat it at risk of it being noticed?
I once pulled out all the books in the library pertaining to accounts of the Black Death at the library and spent the better part of the day going through them. Talk about bleak, dreary and dismal days, makes hopelessness look positively bright. These people had not a clue about what was going on, all that they knew was that they were in a pretty bad way.
The accounts I read described a rather disconcerting and unsettling experience: wailing of anguish, constant ringing of church bells, the stench of decay, the smoke of burning flesh, the symptoms and signs of the onset and progress of the disease, whole families succumbing, etc. Quite horrifying from a modern perspective in contemplation of having to live through as a matter of course.
Case in point were the reports of the cannibalism of infants by the peasants. While not very well documented, many reports of it exist. I was reading about various scholar's rationalization of such in the sense that during the height of the plague there was famine. What little food they did produce the sovereigns seized (leaving many of their feudal tenants with virtually nothing/I>. Its speculated that many had to resort to cannibalism of their infants in that the infants were absolutely not productive.
One has to keep in mind what life was like for the average person back then. Life was extremely hard. The summer was one mad dash to get enough provisions stocked up to make it through the winter. Probably the alleged cannibalism occurred most often during the harshest and darkest period of winter. Combine that with the psychosis attributable to ergot amine poisoning and chronic malnutrition, self-preservation would only instill a sort of "Donner party-mentality".
Boy I'm glad we don't have to deal with that any more. What a glorious thing it is to be "civilized" nowadays, eh? What, with flushing toilets, running water, "free" health-care, drugs based on scientific principles (not the efficacy of Gregorian chants to chase away the evil spirits). I believe that each and every Thanksgiving holiday, we should give extremely sincere and most humble thanks to whatever power that one may believe exists (whether one believe that pure chance, or supernatural deity rules the universe) that we all have lived our lives during present times rather than any other.
“Bring out your dead!”
Beat me!
I agree, excellent book.
I read that book in 1978, a great book that follows the Coucy family throughout the period.
I remember reading that some villages/areas in Europe were free or relatively free of the plague.
It was speculated that some immunization gene within the rather inbred communities might have protectd them.
Same with the flowers...they hoped that the scent would, somehow, help purify the air.
The nose cone on the doctors' funny suits...
...would be filled with flowers to this end.
The black rats carried the fleas which carried the disease; but a more advanced form--pneumonic--did travel in the sputum of the ill.
Appreciated.
bookmark!
Thanks for that link.
If the Middle Ages actually tolerated the cat, then there would have been no rats and no plague.
So the bad teeth is the result of bacteria carried by fleas on RATS? Who’da thunk?
In terms of genetics, there is ZERO science to that statement, because it assumes (1)that greater genetic diversity of the 4th or the 11th centuries (see below) had not - due to increased mixing of the people since then - already abated (merged) by the 14th century and (2)that whatever genetic diversity that did exist in the 14th century was not reflected across the area of Britain geographically, and within geographic regions and (3)that some areas of Britain with a greater portion of distinct and/or isolated genetic groups were more affected than others.
But, neither (1), (2) or (3) can be assumed and (3) in particular seems least likely because cities - where more conglomerations of diverse people lived together - were harder hit than countrysides, where distinct and individual (genetically diverse groups) were more likely to remain.
The scientifically more accurate study - for the affects of the plague itself on "genetic diversity" would have compared todays genetic mix with the era of the plague itself, and not to two to ten centuries earlier.
My guess is that the "genetic diversity" of either the 4th or 11th centuries was more diverse than what was represented in Britain WHEN THE PLAGUE ARRIVED. I think that someone was reaching for a social cause for the loss of genetic diversity ("some families faired worse than others" - can you imagine which ones the researcher assumed they were?)
The history of Britains main genetic components and the periods of the their distinct nature as well as the length of the periods of their mixing; would read approximately as follows:
Both the 4th and 11th centuries were periods of great influx of new genetic material to Britain; material that was still reflected (because of its recent introduction) by distinct groups.
The historic and archaeological data suggests that the early inhabitants of the British Isles did not see themselves as a common society; that their environmental, social and technological conditions had, for some time, favored small and independent groups. When the Romans arrived, in the first century, they documented 27 different tribal groups in the islands of their newest addition to their empire. In the fourth century the earlier tribal groups were still socially arranged around four groupings - Britons, Scots, Picts and Gaels, plus you had new influxes of Romans and those employed to support the Romans, which included, predominately, groups from Gaul (not yet invaded by the Franks) as well as others (from the Mediterranean and from Iberia).
By the 11th century, the older tribes in most of "Britain" south of Hadrian's wall had been overtaken by and mixed (where not eliminated) with two German tribal groups, the Angles and the Saxons (5th to 7th centuries) and two large influxes of "Norse" (first the Vikings in the 9th century, and then their cousins who had settled in the north end of Gaul, the Normans (Norse men) in the 11th century).
By the 13th century, the earliest "native Britons" were most likely already absorbed and mixed into the larger and broader Anglo-Saxon/Norman state (except in the pockets that still remain, even today [Wales, Isle of Man, and Scotland]), and they had been working on (inter-marrying) toward that genetic merging for the prior nine centuries.
The genetic comparison that should have been made - with respect to the plague - would have been with the years most recently prior to the plague - not earlier. It is there where the actual genetic diversity that the plague may have affected is best identified. Without that data there is no evidence to identify any genetic diversity of either the 4th or the 11th centuries that intermarriage had not already merged by the 14th century. Unless you can identify that, you cannot claim to know what genetic diversity from either the 4th or the 11th centuries, was diminished solely due to the plague and not because of continuous intermarrying over nearly a millennium prior to the plague.
I’ve read A Distant Mirror several times and wonder how our culture would handle such calamities.
Her Guns of August, Bible and Sword, The Proud Tower and The Zimmerman Telegram were also great. The March of Folly was a little slanted against the Vietnam War effort but well worth the time.
I must admit I was disappointed after noting some sloppy scholarship in The First Salute.
Still, I thank the great historian Barbara Tuchman! RIP
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
“Stilwell”, a bio, is another of hers, loved it.
“I’m not dead...”
What proof can you provide in support of that statemnt? :D)
"Quiet, you!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.